IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
AUGUST SESSION, 1996
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9509-CC-00250
)
Appellee, )
)
FILED
) DYER COUNTY March 26, 2008
VS. )
) HON. JOE G. RILEY Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
SOLOMON AKINS, ) JUDGE
)
Appellant. ) (Sufficiency of Evidence-Sentencing)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
G. STEPHEN DAVIS CHARLES W. BURSON
District Public Defender Attorney General and Reporter
208 N. Mill Avenue
Dyersburg, TN 38025-0742 CLINTON J. MORGAN
Assistant Attorney General
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243
PHILLIP BIVENS
District Attorney General
JAMES E. LANIER
Assistant District Attorney
115 E. Market
Dyersburg, TN 38024
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
ORDER
This is an appeal as of right pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 3. On January 26,
1995, Appellant was convicted by a jury of five counts of selling less than .5 grams of
cocaine. As a Range II offender, Appellant received a sentence of eight years and six
months for each count. All five of these sentences were concurrent to each other, but
consecutive to two previous convictions he was serving on probation. In this appeal
Appellant alleges the evidence is insufficient to support the verdicts, and that his
sentence is excessive. Having reviewed the record in this matter we are of the opinion
that the convictions and sentence are fully supported by the law and evidence and that
this matter should be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal
Appeals.
Appellant’s complaint concerning the sufficiency of the evidence centers around
his contention that the undercover operative, used by police to buy cocaine from
Appellant, is untrustworthy. As such, Appellant asks this Court to re-weigh her
testimony. We must decline his request.
It is axiomatic that the credibility of witnesses is a matter that is entrusted
exclusively to the jury as the triers of fact. A guilty verdict that is approved by the trial
judge accredits the testimony of the State’s witnesses and resolves all conflicts in the
testimony in favor of prosecution theory. This Court may not reweigh matters of
witness credibility. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832 (Tenn. 1978). State v. Evans,
838 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). We will not disturb the jury’s obvious
finding that the undercover operative testified truthfully.
-2-
Appellant’s complaint with regard to his sentence is waived due to a failure to
argue or cite any authority reflecting why his sentence is excessive. State v. Hill, 875
S.W.2d 278, 284 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). However, we have nevertheless reviewed
the record and found the trial judge applied three enhancement factors and one
mitigating factor. No complaint is made as to the application of the enhancement
factors. In addition there is not complaint that applicable mitigating factors were not
considered. Appellant has a previous history of criminal convictions, he had a history
of unwillingness to comply with conditions of release into the community, and the
offenses which are the subject of this appeal were committed while Appellant was on
probation. While Appellant’s conduct did not threaten or cause serious bodily injury to
anyone, this mitigating factor’s importance is diminished by the nature of the offenses
and the seriousness of the enhancement factors. The possible sentence for a Range
II defendant convicted of selling less that .5 grams of cocaine is six and ten years.
Under the circumstances Appellant’s sentence in the middle of this range is not
excessive.
The convictions and sentence are affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the
Court of Criminal Appeals.
____________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________
GARY R. WADE, JUDGE
___________________________________
WILLIAM M. BARKER, JUDGE
-3-